CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.

172 ITR 257Supreme Court of India1988#814 most cited

What is CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. authority for?

An expenditure is classified as either capital or revenue; the 'enduring benefit' test is a key criterion for this distinction, and income tax law does not generally recognize deferred revenue expenditure unless specifically provided.

126

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,518 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. · 172 ITR 257 · capital expenditure · revenue expenditure · enduring benefit test · deferred revenue expenditure · business deductions · Section 35D · Section 32(1)(ii) · Section 40A(9)

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 115JBSection 133ASection 194ASection 201Section 201ASection 271(1)(c)

Issues it is cited on

recognised provident fundsection 50bsection 43b(f)approved gratuity fundsection 40a(9)test of enduring benefitsection 211section 35dwholly and exclusively for businesssection 32(1)(ii)enduring benefitslump sale

Judgments citing CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.

M/S Karnataka Emta Coal Mines Limited, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2135/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Nov 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V.P. Pavan Kumar &
Section 32(1)(ii)Section 35ESection 37

…e land taken on long lease and as the said expenditure resulted in a saving of rent which was a revenue expenditure, the Hon'ble Apex Court allowed the said expenditure as revenue expenditure. Similarly, in the case of CIT v. Associated Cement Co. Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 257' (SC), the assessee by bearing the cost of laying pipelines as per the agreement entered into with the Government/municipality, was not needed to pay municipal taxes for 15 years and considering that the assessee in the absence of the said arrangement would have to pay the taxes every year to the debit of revenue account, the said expenditure was…

Rosebys Interiors India Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-5, Ahmedabad

In the result, this Ground of appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 204/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 234ASection 271Section 37

…ho had held that there is no concept for deferred revenue expenditure in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 257 (SC), Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) and the I.T.A. Nos. 153 & 204/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No. 17 DCIT vs. M/s. Rosebys Interiors India Ltd. & Rosebys Interiors India Ltd. vs. ACIT judgment of this court in CIT v. Salora International Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi). In the case of DC/7 vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. 308 ITR 263…

The DCIT, Circle-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rosebys Interiors India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, this Ground of appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 153/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2010-11
For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 234ASection 271Section 37

…ho had held that there is no concept for deferred revenue expenditure in the Income Tax Act, 1961. Also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 257 (SC), Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT[1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) and the I.T.A. Nos. 153 & 204/Ahd/2017 A.Y. 2010-11 Page No. 17 DCIT vs. M/s. Rosebys Interiors India Ltd. & Rosebys Interiors India Ltd. vs. ACIT judgment of this court in CIT v. Salora International Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi). In the case of DC/7 vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. 308 ITR 263…

The ACIT, Circle-5, Ahmedabad vs. M/S. Rosebys Interiors India Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Department is dismissed

ITA 1047/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2022AY 2009-10
For Appellant: Shri Mukund Bakshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-D.R
Section 271(1)(c)Section 37

…who had held that there is no concept for deferred revenue expenditure in the Income Tax Act,1961. Also relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the cases of Calcutta Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 1 (SC), CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. [1988] 172 ITR 257 (SC), Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1980] 124 ITR 1 (SC) and the judgment of this court in CIT v. Salora International Ltd. [2009] 308 ITR 199 (Delhi). In the case of DCIT vs. Core Healthcare Ltd. 308 ITR 263 (Guf.) gujrat high court has discussed the issue in detail as under I.T.A. No. 1047/Ahd/2015 A.Y. 2009-10 Page No. 6 ACIT vs. M/s. Rosebys…

M/S. Standard Chartered Bank, Mumbai vs. The ACIT (It)1(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 803/MUM/2009[1999-2000]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Sept 2022AY 1999-2000

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blestandard Chartered Bank V. Acit – Range-1(3) Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Adit (It)– 2(3) V. Standard Chartered Bank Room No. 120, 1St Floor Taxation Department, 23-25 Scindia House, Ballard Estate M.G. Road, 3Rd Floor N.M. Marg, Mumbai - 400038 Fort, Mumbai - 400001 Pan: Aabcs4681D (Appellant) (Respondent) Shri P.J. Pardiwala & Assessee Represented By : Shri Fenil Bhatt Shri Soumendu Kumar Dash Department Represented By :

Section 115JSection 14ASection 90Section 90(2)

…nt was contributed for the purpose of facilitating the business of the assessee and making it more efficient and profitable. It was, therefore, revenue expenditure. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, Bombay City- I v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (172 ITR 257) the respondent- company entered into an agreement to supply water to the municipality and provide water pipelines as also to supply electricity for street lighting and put up a transmission line for that purpose. The assessee also agreed to concrete the main road from the factory to the railway station. The amounts expended for these purposes we…

PCIT Mumbai 1 vs. Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd

ITA/160/2022HC Delhi31 May 2022

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MANMOHAN,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE MANMEET PRITAM SINGH ARORA

…of capital expenditure as stipulated in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1980) 4 SCC 25, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd., (1998) 233 ITR 468, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-I vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd., (1988) 172 ITR 257, Hindustan Times Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, (1980) 122 ITR 977, CIT Vs. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2618 is not satisfied in the present case. 9. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the compensation paid had arisen out of business necessity and is revenue expenditure. Accordingly, no sub…

PCIT Mumbai 1 vs. Elel Hotels and Investments Ltd

ITA-160/2022HC Delhi31 May 2022

…of capital expenditure as stipulated in Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT, (1980) 4 SCC 25, Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Madras Auto Service (P.) Ltd., (1998) 233 ITR 468, Commissioner of Income Tax, Bombay City-I vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd., (1988) 172 ITR 257, Hindustan Times Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi, (1980) 122 ITR 977, CIT Vs. Bharat Aluminium Company Ltd., 2010 SCC OnLine Del 2618 is not satisfied in the present case. 9. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the compensation paid had arisen out of business necessity and is revenue expenditure. Accordingly, no sub…

The ACIT RG 1(1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Associated Cement Co., Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 5259/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rgument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the issue has been covered in favour of the ITA. No. 5259 & 4895/Mum/2007 Assessment Year: 2004-05 assessee in the assessee‟s own case reported in CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. Since the matter of controversy has duly been covered and decided in favour of the assessee in the assessee‟s own case and L.H. Sugar Factory and oil Mills (P) Ltd. V CIT (1980) 125 ITR 293 (SC), therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the mat…

M/S. Acc Ltd ( Formely Known As the Associated Cememtn Companies Ltd), Mumbai vs. The Addl CIT RG 1(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the Revenue is partly allowed while the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 4895/MUM/2007[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 May 2022AY 2004-2005
For Appellant: Shri Yogesh Thar, Shri ChaitanyaFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Mishra
Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…rgument, the Ld. Representative of the assessee has argued that the issue has been covered in favour of the ITA. No. 5259 & 4895/Mum/2007 Assessment Year: 2004-05 assessee in the assessee‟s own case reported in CIT Vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC). The facts are not distinguishable at this stage also. Since the matter of controversy has duly been covered and decided in favour of the assessee in the assessee‟s own case and L.H. Sugar Factory and oil Mills (P) Ltd. V CIT (1980) 125 ITR 293 (SC), therefore, in the said circumstances, we are of the view that the CIT(A) has decided the mat…

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1388/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…ording to the learned counsel, the said view of the High Court is not in consonance with the law laid by the this Court in Empire Jute Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 124 ITR 1; Commissioner of Income Tax. Bombay-11 v. Associated Cements Co. Ltd., 172 ITR 257 and Alembic Chemical works Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Gujarat, 177 ITR 377. The learned counsel has also invited our attention to the decisions of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High Court in Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. (supra). [See: Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.), 171 ITR 2…

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1387/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…ording to the learned counsel, the said view of the High Court is not in consonance with the law laid by the this Court in Empire Jute Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 124 ITR 1; Commissioner of Income Tax. Bombay-11 v. Associated Cements Co. Ltd., 172 ITR 257 and Alembic Chemical works Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Gujarat, 177 ITR 377. The learned counsel has also invited our attention to the decisions of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High Court in Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. (supra). [See: Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.), 171 ITR 2…

M/S Value & Budget Housing Corporation Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-7(1)(2), Bangalore

ITA 1370/BANG/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Sri.Ramasubramaniyan, CAFor Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Besaganni, JCIT-DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 35D

…ording to the learned counsel, the said view of the High Court is not in consonance with the law laid by the this Court in Empire Jute Company Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 124 ITR 1; Commissioner of Income Tax. Bombay-11 v. Associated Cements Co. Ltd., 172 ITR 257 and Alembic Chemical works Co. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax. Gujarat, 177 ITR 377. The learned counsel has also invited our attention to the decisions of the High Courts of Andhra Pradesh, Kerala and Madras High Court in Kisenchand Chellaram (India) P. Ltd. (supra). [See: Warner Hindustan Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (A.P.), 171 ITR 2…

DCIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi vs. Hughes Communication India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals being ITA No

ITA 5827/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri G.S.Pannu & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Dcit Vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi Nh-8, New Delhi Aaach0765L Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 2013-14] & [Assessment Year : 2014-15] Acit Vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi Nh-8, New Delhi Aaach0765L Appellant Respondent Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv & Sh. Deepesh Appellant By Jain, Ca Respondent By Sh. Vinay Kumar Karan Cit(Dr) & Sh. Kumar Padmapani Bora , Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.11.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 31.12.2021

…1 ITA No. 5827/Del/2017, 569 & 571/Del/2018 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI G.S.PANNU, PRESIDENT & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2011-12] DCIT vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi NH-8, New Delhi AAACH0765L APPELLANT RESPONDENT [Assessment Year : 2013-14] & [Assessment Year : 2014-15] ACIT vs Hughes Communication India Ltd. Cirlce-11(2) 1, Shivaji Marg, Westend Greens, New Delhi NH-8, New Delhi AAACH0765L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Sh. Ajay Vohra, Sr. Adv & Sh. Deepes…

Hitachi Metglas (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 11(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 5906/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Nov 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2010-11]

For Appellant: Shri Saleel Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Pradeep Kumar Meel, CIT- DR

…iture is related to the carrying on, or conduct of the business, it may be regarded as an integral part of the profit making process and therefore revenue in nature: · • Empire Jute Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 124 ITR 1 (SC) · • CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.: 172 ITR 257 (SC) · • Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: 177 ITR 377 (SC) · • Arvind Mills Ltd v. CIT: 97 ITR 422 (SC) 51 • ITA Nos.551/Del./2014 & 636/Del./2015 · • ChandulalKeshavlal v. CIT: 38 ITR 601(SC) · • Bombay Steam Navigation Co. (1953) (P.) Ltd. v. CIT: 56 ITR 52 (SC) · DevidasVithaldas& Co. v. CIT: 84 ITR 277 (SC) · • Chelpark Company Ltd. v.…

El El Hotels & Investments Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 918/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Feb 2021AY 2006-07
For Appellant: Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate &For Respondent: Ms Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 143(3)Section 153A

…1 (Delhi); ii) Gopal Das Estates & Housing (P) Ltd. vs. CIT, (2019) 412 ITR 489 (Del); iii) Shyam Buriap Company Ltd. vs. CIT (2016) 380 ITR 151 (Calcutta); iv) Bikaner Gypsums Ltd. vs. CIT (1991) 187 ITR 39; v) CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd. (1988) 172 ITR 257 (SC); vi) Empire Jute Co. Ltd. vs. CIT (1980) 124 ITR 1 (SC); 14 vii) CIT vs. Ashok Leyland Ltd. (1972) 86 ITR 549 (SC); viii) Airport Authority of India vs. CIT (2012) 340 ITR 407 (Del); ix) CIT, Bombay vs. Airlines Hotel (P) Ltd.; x) CIT vs. UTI Bank Ltd. (2013) 32 taxmann.com 282 (Gujarat); xi) CIT vs. M/s Shriram Builcons Ltd. ITA No.39,53,6…

M/S. Ue Development India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 7(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2381/BANG/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Dec 2020AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/2006) (Bang – Trib.) x. CIT Vs. Tejas Networks India P. Ltd. 229 Taxman 40 (Kar) xi. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) xii. CIT Vs. Talisma Corporation (P) Ltd 40 taxmann.com 400 (Kar) xiii. CIT Vs. Associated Cements Co. Ltd. 172 ITR 257 (SC) Thus he submitted that R & D expenditure does not pertains to any tangible or intangible assets into the assessee's business and no enduring benefit to the assessee, the expenditure was incurred for facilitating the assessee's business for day to day improvement of the assessee's business. 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the ord…

Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2182/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/2006) (Bang – Trib.) x. CIT Vs. Tejas Networks India P. Ltd. 229 Taxman 40 (Kar) xi. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) xii. CIT Vs. Talisma Corporation (P) Ltd 40 taxmann.com 400 (Kar) xiii. CIT Vs. Associated Cements Co. Ltd. 172 ITR 257 (SC) Thus he submitted that R & D expenditure does not pertains to any tangible or intangible assets into the assessee's business and no enduring benefit to the assessee, the expenditure was incurred for facilitating the assessee's business for day to day improvement of the assessee's business. 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the ord…

M/S Tata Advanced Materials Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2181/BANG/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Sept 2020AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojari

For Appellant: Shri Sharath Rao, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT (D.R)
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ACIT (ITA No.470/Bang/2006) (Bang – Trib.) x. CIT Vs. Tejas Networks India P. Ltd. 229 Taxman 40 (Kar) xi. Empire Jute Co. Ltd. Vs. CIT 124 ITR 1 (SC) xii. CIT Vs. Talisma Corporation (P) Ltd 40 taxmann.com 400 (Kar) xiii. CIT Vs. Associated Cements Co. Ltd. 172 ITR 257 (SC) Thus he submitted that R & D expenditure does not pertains to any tangible or intangible assets into the assessee's business and no enduring benefit to the assessee, the expenditure was incurred for facilitating the assessee's business for day to day improvement of the assessee's business. 14. On the other hand, the ld. DR relied on the ord…

ACIT (Ltu), New Delhi vs. M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 466/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…he expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future." The ratio deciendi laid down in the aforesaid judgment has been reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court in CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.: [172 ITR 257], and again in the case of Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: [177 ITR 377]. He also referred to several decisions to the same effect as i. CIT vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd.: 233 ITR 468 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd: 172 ITR 257(SC) iii. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. : 322 ITR 478 (Raj) iv. CIT v. J…

M/S Havells India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 6073/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2020AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishihavells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Circle-12(1), Civil Lines, New Delhi Cr Building Ip Estate, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Havells India Ltd, Vs. Dcit, 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, Ltu, Nbcc Plaza, Civil Lines, New Delhi Pusp Vihar, Sector-4, Saket, Pan: Aaach0351E New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Acit (Ltu), Vs. Havells India Ltd, Nbcc Plaza, Pusp Vihar, Sector- 1/7 Ram Kishore Road, 4, Saket, New Delhi Civil Lines, New Delhi Pan: Aaach0351E (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Saras Kumar, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 14ASection 80H

…he expenditure would be on revenue account, even though the advantage may endure for an indefinite future." The ratio deciendi laid down in the aforesaid judgment has been reiterated by the Honourable Supreme Court in CIT v. Associated Cement Companies Ltd.: [172 ITR 257], and again in the case of Alembic Chemical Works Co. Ltd. v. CIT: [177 ITR 377]. He also referred to several decisions to the same effect as i. CIT vs. Madras Auto Service (P) Ltd.: 233 ITR 468 (SC) ii. CIT vs. Associated Cement Companies Ltd: 172 ITR 257(SC) iii. Commissioner of Income Tax v. Hindustan Zinc Ltd. : 322 ITR 478 (Raj) iv. CIT v. J…